Hilarious: The Daily Show Makes Fun of CNBC

Who’s that annoying co-worker a few cubes down who keeps giggling at some stupid video on Friday afternoon? Just go home already, ya jerk! Yeah, that was me, watching this Daily Show clip making fun of financial pr0n channel CNBC.

The first part is about Rick Santelli’s rant about “loser” homeowner bailouts, but the good stuff starts at about 2:45 minutes in. I wonder how many hours they spent compiling these clips!

“If I only followed CNBC’s advice, I would have a million dollars today! …Provided I started with a hundred million dollars.” – Jon Stewart

Share this:

Related

Comments

Silly stuff… gotta side with Rick though. The bailouts of irresponsible buyers is purely populist and punishes the responsible. The govt caused this problem to begin with and Bush and Obama both will and have made it worse by getting govt even more involved.

Oh yeah. I loved this one. It was classic! Another great one was the stock market ticker one where he makes fun of using the performance of the Dow as a litmus test for the success Obama is having as president less than two months in.

Regardless of what you think of homeowner bailouts (I disagree with the implementation), Jon Stewart’s point was that these huge financial companies got a much LARGER bailout. But the Wall Street trader Santelli wasn’t bitching about that, was he? So it’s a bit hypocritical in that regard.

“Yeah man! Wall Street is mad as hell! And they’re not going to take it anymore! Unless by it you mean $2 trillion in bailout money. That they will take.”

Ray: The government caused the meltdown? That is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. The govt didn’t invent the securitizing of debt, nor the moral hazard the practice created within banks. You are clearly simply parroting those talk show hosts who’ve run out of ideas. If socialism does come, it will have been the banks and investment firms that opened the door to it.

It’s been more than a year that I’ve stopped watching CNBC, but I have to admit, I used to watch it religiously. I also used to follow Morningstar ratings very closely. There was even a time when I thought Janus was a great mutual fund company. I thought I was sooooo smart just because I watched and listened to CNBC. It took me a long while to remove the “kick me” sign planted on my back.

Stewart was hilarious, but the content wasn’t. Cramer, Bartiromo, and whomever else we once thought were so brilliant are just people with graduate degrees who have done nothing else but frame words that have suckered millions of investors. I agree with Luke, CNBC’s more show than news.

Well, if you have been watching cnbc, santelli is the only guy who spoke against all bailouts. This particular one got attention via drudge…

BTW if you follow this guy, he has been taking down cnbc for a while now…And he also has videos of santelli ranting against all bailouts and taking on cramer, liesman and all cnbc truthers…http://www.youtube.com/user/donharrold

Catch22 is right: Santelli has been consistently and vociferously against pretty much all of the government-funded bailouts. The clip is showing Santelli’s reaction to the government’s proposed bailout of a portion of homeowners and should not be thought of as representative of Santelli’s views on the aggregated bailouts thus far. So, Jonathan, with all due respect, I don’t think Santelli is being hypocritical.

Santelli is getting pounced on by members of the media for being a callous shill of the financial industry, which he most certainly is not.

One last point: Santelli is also affiliated with the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. I’m not so sure it’s fair to lump those guys (who seem to share Santelli’s sentiments re: bailouts) with the Wall Street folks.

I don’t see any lashing out at CNBC; however, it would seem that there are less that do not watch it.

According to their website, “CNBC is the recognized world leader in business news, providing real-time financial market coverage and business information to more than 340 million homes worldwide, including more than 95 million households in the United States and Canada. Viewers of CNBC business news programming are business executives and financial professionals that have significant purchasing power.”

Jim Cramer did to many investors what his former classmate Eliot Spitzer did to those high-priced call girls. And who knows what CNBC’s biggest star, Maria Bartiromo, did while racking up frequent flier miles on the Citigroup jet.

I’m not lashing out at CNBC. I just don’t recognize them as a “world leader.”

I watch the Daily Show daily, but I thought this bit was in poor taste and very unfunny. Sure CNBC didn’t see this coming, but name the media outlet that did. CNN? Any of the major newspapers or magazines? Why lash out against CNBC in particular?

So, you’re saying that the banking industry should be exempt from the dangers of capitalism? If so, that means that our government and our citizens are basically hostage to the whims of the banks. Should we just keep propping up failed businesses and socialize the loses because it’s a “necessary evil?” It’s easy to criticize when you have a couple billion in bailout money coming your way.

If anyone has a link to his rant on bailing out the banks and insurance companies, please share because I can’t find one. Bonus points if he calls the executives losers. 🙂 But really, I don’t mind Santelli because he’s saying what a lot of people are thinking.

CNBC part is just funny! I’m sure they could do the same with Bloomberg or Fox Business.

Anyone ever hear of The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) ? It is US Federal Law – see Title 12, Chapter 30, Section 2901. It was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1977 and has seen changes by several Administrations.

Many people feel that the CRA causes banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks. It has subsidized low-income housing by pressuring banks to serve poor borrowers and poor regions of the country. In other words, many think the CRA law pressure banks into subprime lending. In fact, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) required Fannie Mae it to dedicate 50% of its business to low- and moderate-income families. Sounds to me like this is yet another fine example of a US Federal program with painful unintended consequences.

The Congress finds that:
(1) regulated financial institutions are REQUIRED BY LAW to demonstrate that their deposit facilities serve the convenience and needs of the communities in which they are chartered to do business;
(2) the convenience and needs of communities include the need for credit services as well as deposit services; and
(3) regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligation to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered.

Mike says that we needed to bail out the banks and Rich says: If so, that means that our government and our citizens are basically hostage to the whims of the banks…

But what you’re missing here Rich is that citizens technically already are hostage to the whims of the central bank. If the central bank wants to print away your life’s savings, they are free to do that.

I’m really not a big fan of the bailouts, but to some extent the banking system needed saving. If too many banks fail, the government basically becomes the banks.

All of these banks are FDIC-insured. So if the bank goes under we are all on the hook for the money in those banks. So you either prop up the bank a little with government money, or you let the bank die and then you’re on the hook. If you look at the current situation, the government has finally accepted that the herd must be thinned. So we’re going to let a bunch of banks die and try to salvage the strongest ones.

But yeah, you can’t bail out GM… I mean we tried, but it was doomed to failure from day one. However, bailing out a bank that you’ve insured is really a different ball game.

@Frank Curmudgeon: …but name the media outlet that did….Why lash out against CNBC in particular?

Given that CNBC is paying the specialists in the field, if they don’t see it coming who else is supposed to? And look, it could just as easily have been Bloomberg who got lambasted. But CNBC runs shows like Mad Money, so they draw the extra attention from being so sensationalist.

I saw this bit on TV with my wife. When he opened with the CNBC logo I said “Honey, this is like shooting fish in a barrel, they could do a whole show on this.”

Watch that last video. Watch the reactions of everyone else on the panels. Look at the dates. Peter Schiff called it while being literally laughed at and demeaned. He called all of the pieces.

Here are the major news outlets, the CNBCs of the world that are supposed to be populated with specialists, with experts and professionals. And the one guy who sees it coming is being poo-pooed by the other 5 people on the panel.

And you want to know why we’re picking on CNBC? Isn’t it obvious that they’re pretty clueless?

The fact is the majority of the people were all “losers.” If we collectively really knew what was going on, we wouldn’t be in this mess. It’s easy to find experts who called it after the fact, these experts were cassandras who were ignored. The fact is that the majority of the people have been complicit directly or indirectly for the bubble that’s now popping. It’s not the Government’s fault. Fannie and Freddie made bad loans, but private banks were already doing so without government intervention. Why? Because it was a great way to make money on the rise. Was it foolish? Of course it was, but for the bankers involved it made complete sense. The lack of real ownership on the part of shareholder is really to blame. Did people buy too much house? No doubt about it, but you could’ve told that to someone in 1996 and they’ll swear it was the best decision they made. Timing is everything, and clearly not everyone can time the market.

Santelli isn’t on Wall Street. He is in the CBOE pits where they trade US Treasuries. You know the crap paper that is being used to fund all this stimulus (spending is a much better word). The bond market will have a say on all this spending.
The bond market controls/allows what Washington does, not the politicians. When HilaryCare was tried, it was the bond market that gave the President the finger. He knew that the market would not finance the plan.

Santelli, Mark Haines, and the commentator from Fast Money are the only voices of reason on CNBS.

That said, I don’t know why everyone has such a problem with socialism. I am born and raised Calfiornia Bay Area, pretty affluent. I am 24 and live in Sweden. Not even a citizen (just residence) I get masters degree for free, healthcare free… 25 paid vacation days + 9 paid sick days.

there is much i love of america, well, love of california, but i dont uncerstand the socialist gripe

Zach, that is a ridiculous comment. How many billionaires are in Sweden? How many are in the U.S? If you don’t care about having a chance to make it big in this world, I guess Sweden would be fine. But if you have ever had the chance to live for a while in the Hamptons or Hawaii, you will realize how good life can get. Its all about maximizing your standard of living. And the possibilities are endless here.

Jon thanks for sharing this is good stuff:)
@ Dan, if the CRA has been in effect since 1977 why didn’t the market crash sooner? It’s hard to ignore the moral degredation that has occured in our society over the last 30 years. Greed has replaced ethical conduct. Lenders chose to do “what everyone else doing” instead of what was right, then blame the government for forcing them to lend to the poor and underserved. That was not and is not the intent of the CRA, but anyone can read whatever they want into something if it means more money in their pocket.
It may be the last sentence but the most important in your link above:

(b) It is the purpose of this chapter to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.”
The CRA doesn’t absolve lenders from operating in safe and sound manner. I don’t think you have to be a financial genius to realize that you shouldn’t lend money to people who don’t have the ability to pay you back in a manner consistent with lending rules. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to require borrowers to provide proof of income and maintain industry debt to income ratios.

A lot of those CNBC clips are taken completely out of context… For every guest they had on to say now is the time to buy, they probably had another guest on who made an equally compelling argument to sell. Heck, most of the time, CNBC usually has two guests on at the same time who take counter sides of the argument.

In an attempt at humor, the Today Show simply showed one half of the argument. CNBC doesn’t really take sides on these things.

Mad Money on the other hand is just that… He does take sides on things and ripping on him is fair game.

I could EASILY make a video with numerous clips of people on CNBC stating that people should have gotten out of the market a while back, or that the subprime/credit mess was going to be a major problem.

Oh, and Santelli’s whole rant was great… I saw it live. He was DEAD on…. For what is is worth, nobody forced any of these homeowners to live beyond their means.

Archives

Categories

Connect with me

Please do not re-publish text or pictures found on this site elsewhere without explicit prior written consent.

Advertiser Disclosure

MyMoneyBlog.com is for informational purposes only. Do not take it as legal, financial, or tax advice for your personal situation.

Rates and terms set on third-party websites are subject to change without notice. Per FTC guidelines, MyMoneyBlog.com has financial relationships with the merchants mentioned. MyMoneyBlog.com is compensated if visitors click on any outbound links and generate sales for the said merchant.

The editorial content on this site is not provided by the companies whose products are featured. Any opinions, analyses, reviews or evaluations provided here are those of the author's alone, and have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by the Advertiser.

MyMoneyBlog.com is for informational purposes only. Do not take it as legal, financial, or tax advice for your personal situation.

Rates and terms set on third-party websites are subject to change without notice. Per FTC guidelines, MyMoneyBlog.com has financial relationships with the merchants mentioned. MyMoneyBlog.com is compensated if visitors click on any outbound links and generate sales for the said merchant.

The editorial content on this site is not provided by the companies whose products are featured. Any opinions, analyses, reviews or evaluations provided here are those of the author’s alone, and have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by the Advertiser.